as you showed, it is already 2800. adam: on that note, thank you to both of you. that is all the money we have for you today. we will see you back on monday. if you're celebrating this monday, have a wonderful easterd tomorrow but we are very much open for business. stick around, we need it. john: capitalist may kill these cute little animals. and emissions threatening all of earth. devastating worldwide climate change is happening, but celebrities and politicians have solutions. these cool people own electric and hybrid cars. now my mayor wants to ban styrofoam cups. >> it is something we can do without. >> what isext? john: in the name of protecting earth, we have green tyranny. that is our show tonight.
>> and now, john stossel. john: green tyranny is what we called this show, but tierney is a harsh word, a thing of dictatorship. a little over the top. most don't seem to rise to that. also, bans on pollution are actually a good thing, i'm glad government rules committee air and water cleaner. and i was a kid there was so much soot in the air, we didn't open the window. that has changed for the better. they change the water so much so that the rivers aund manhattan are now ean enough to swim in. even here within sight of the empire state building within a short distance of millions of people flushing, i am willing to do this. it was freezing cold, but no longer so filthy.
so hooray for the epa. so why i use the phrase "green tyranny?" because government always goes too far. years ago i learned some animals were going extinct i thought the endangered species act was a great idea. but in the hands of government lawyers and environmental zealots come itecomes petty tyranny. prairie dogs, beatles take priority over people. see this guy? the utah prairie dog. he better hope you don't fight him on your land because if you do, government can make it almost impossible for you to use your land. they bought land hoping to develop it, but the government environmental pirates ordered them to stop. trying to help them, so what is this about? neil: this is about the endangered species act going too far. we have tens of thousands of prairie dogs living in utah
under the protection of the deral government, and as result if you own a lan with prairie dogs on th his committee hardly get rid of them. if you have a cemetery, they can invade the cemetery like they are in southern utah. if you own an airport, the airport is being overrun with prairie dogs and you can't do much of anything about it. these prairie dogs should not be endangered. the tale is a little different color. john: there must be something different. we have a picture of the black tailed prairie dogs which is plentiful, apparently. but the utah prairie dog, which looks the same to me, is endangered, threatened, and these experts are not just certainly, they want to protect everything.
john: let's hear your story. you have owned land in utah for a while, you wanted to do what with it? >> i bought a piece of land for my retirement development and when the prairie dogs moved on, what happened was the process of getting them removed you had to go through a process and this process for my 3.4 acres would've taken 42 years to accompli. john: and we have a statement fromhe fish and wildlife service saying we work with homeowners. to continue to provide financial and technical assistance to encourage voluntary conservation. >> a couple of years ago they came up with a program if i paid $34,000 to the government i could kill all the prairie dogs on my property. if i didn't pay $34,000 i i kild one prairie dog, to be $10,000 fine and five years in prison. i could grab my local
convenience market and get off easier than that. john: a couple of people have gone to jail for endangered species. i'm surprised you didn't pay $34,000 kill the prairie dogs. >> i didn't have the money. john: you live in louisiana have problem with a different animal. >> i do. a nonexistent animal. the fish and wildlife service has certified the frog itself has not been seen in the state of louisiana since 1967. john: so this is elsewhere, just has not been seen in your neck of the woods. >> not in the whole state. john: and they want to reestablish it. >> they have said they want the land we have, over 1500 acres, to become a frog conservation area and it will utterly destroy the value of our land which they will not and they have told me th, pay for. it is just a massive federal
landfill. john: you want to build some homes. >> we want to build some homes and businesses. the land is high and dry, it still , it will be very valuable for people to live on to avoid the kind of floodi that occurred in katrina. john: this is sort of them saying it is worth zillions of dollars, but you can't make that money. the fish and wildlife said they were not available to, on the show to talk about this in response to your complaint, they posted this video on youtube. >> we're looking forward in working with landowners in louisiana. in fact, we have many programs that provide technical and financial assistance. john: it sounds nice. >> it does, but that does not
give you the whole picture. anytime federal government tells you they want to work with you, you better run the other way because they will not pay you. you have to burn the land. we have a lease we would have to breach, we can never develop the land. john: fish and wildlife, and have a handbook on how to do this, but it is more than 300 pages long. >> 315 to be exact. john: another reason they need a lawyer like you. what is going on? >> fish and wildlife service is a rogue agency that is not even obeying the endangered species act, it is not obeying the environment of national policy act. john: i assumed these people mean well, they are not evil. >> they mean well, but their priorities are all about the species and nothing about the individual landowners who are simply trying to earn a living on their land. this is an agency that has forgotten who they serve.
they should be serving the people that live on the land as well. people and the animals can coexist and they can cooperate to do this, but when you have the heavy hand of the federal government threatening people of jail time and huge fines, if you don't do this, you will have all sorts of trouble. it creates disincentives because landowners do not want to help endangered species act if that is essentially going to be an economic death sentence for them. john: hence the phrase shoot, shovel, and shut up. >> that is the trifecta that happens on some land. some people do it legally, cutting down trees before they get old enough to be habitat for the woodpeckers. it is not good for the woodpecker, not good for the land, it is not good for the economy. it is good for the beer credits if you have a nine to five job. john: thank you.
john: we are constantly told go green, use lesenergy, shrink our carbon footprint. in the name of doing that, u.s. government gets $6 million i subsidies to the solar industry from 11 billion to wind power companies. they would not need early in the dollars, would just invest in them, but investors shy away because they don't want to throw their own money away. the green activists aren't happy, they want more. in eure has been giving them more. this is thomas friedman wrote if only we could be as energy smart as denmark. reuters says germany sets new solar power record, helping germany become a world leader in renewable energy. the left-wing think tank the
center for progress to europe and china have seized the energy opportunity that the unit states risked getting left behind. sounds terrible. it the new field of renewable energy. one left-wing european environmentalistjorn lomborg says we in europe are the ones who have been getting it. you are danish, you helped pay for this. what you think? >> we're paying a large amount of money to have these breaking rights for germany having the most solar, denmark having the most wind. the germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for these solar panels. the net effect of all those would be to postpone global warming by 37 hours by the end of the century. john: you believe in global warming. >> it is something we need to
fix, but we should fix it smartland not in a costly way we are doing now. germany spending $660 for every ton of co2 they are cutting. the benefit of it is about $5. john: even your foolish politicians in europe are now saying we made a mistake and are cutting back? >> they are curbing it, but not phasing it out. still way too proud. john: they are creating green jobs. >> that is another one of those things. if you get lots and lots of subsidies you will get jobs, but where you will see it is with higher taxes elsewhere, which will shed jobs. john: each green job cost $175,000 each per job? >> if you really want jobs, you can make an argument in a crisis to subsidize jobs in the short run. you can get many more jobs if you focused on infrastructure or
hospitals or other things where you would create a lot of great benefits and more jobs. john: you dispute this using wind power to crea the same amount as nuclear plants are you in need to cover the state of rhode island. >> wind turbines are much less efficient partly because they take up a lot of space. john: and they're more efficient than the solar. >> they only work about one fourth of the time. you have to build a lot of backup power. the fuel is free, so potentially we could get to a situation where we are beneficial. but we are not there yet. john: but we are spending like we are. >> a lotof people, global warming, we have to do something now. actually global warming, we have to find smart ways to make sure
we can get everybody on board, not just rich, but we can find technology that will be so cheap the chinese and the indians will buy into these technologies because it is like everything else. if we get cheap, green energy everybody will buy it. john: and if it gets practical, i will invt in it. thank you, bjorn lomborg. stay with us because i keep on hearing wonderful things about electric cars. famous people have them. but you say the green cards have a dirty little secret. that's next.
he applauded the president saying a million electric vehicles will help us break our dependence on oil. that is a popular idea. after leonardo dicaprio is proud he owns one of these hybrid electric cars which can go 125 miles per hour. great. he can afford the $100,000 cost. so can justin bieber. george clooney bought this car for 100 grand but sold it back to the company. maybe because it only goes 30 miles before it needs to recharge. still, electric cars just appeal to people. they give off no emissions. that is why they're a great alternative to oil burning cars. so says brian wynne. part of the electric drive transportation association an electric car lobbying group. bjorn lomborg is back because he is skkptical.
a dirty secret? what? >> john, they don't emit any co2 on the road, but once you produce them, they emit a lot of co2 because a lot of energy goes into the production, especially the battery. half of all the emissions coming out of the electric car have already been emitted when you buy it. john: like 30,000 pounds of carbon monoxide making the car is less than half of that for an ordinary car. >> exactly. and yes, zero emissions on the road, but you still have to recharge iand most of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, so the real point is electric cars are not ready to really help us cut carbon emissions in a big way, it is an efficient way of doing it. john: he is basically saying you have pulled off a scam getting these subsidies for electric
cars. >> i disagree with his numbers. which is not new, it is actually an outlier study if you challenge any of the assumptions in the study, the length you keep the car, the size of the battery pack, etc. it changes the result dramatically. john: you are using the bad number >> what it tells us is if you drive a lot longer, ther there e studies talking electric cars driving 180,000 miles and yes, you will cut carbon emissions significantly. but let's be honest, most of these cars that people can afford, like the leaf will drive 73 miles before it needs to recharge, that is not obvious way to get people to drive a lot. john: mit technology review says do not drive a nissan leaf too
much. >> we have vehicles that have been driven over 200,000 miles. some of them are still out there. the average vehicle we estimate is 130 miles, they are warranted for 10000 miles. john: let's say at last for 200,000 miles. you're plugging it in and burning electricity often made from coal, how does that help? >> it helps. no matter what you are using to generate your electricity, we are not using coal, we are using less and less coal with the price of natural gas falling and we are using renewables as well, but the matter what you are using, plugging your car in is better than using gasoline.
>> you're absolutely right, if you drive your electric car, you will emit less co2 than if you drove your gasoline car. the real issue here is how much does a car save in tons of carbon? how much carbon dioxide is cut from an electric car? >> i think the debate was on the manufacturing side. john: what are you saying? >> basically the manufacturing numbers are probably two to three times what the actual manufacturing is going to be. the other thing that is interesting. john: inotal, let's take your manufacturing numbers and if i am green to buy an electric car, how much less carbon and my putting out? >> you're using onlyarginally more in the production of the
car. they have vastly fewer moving parts, basically the battery that is essentially different. you're putting a little bit more carbon into that car. using gasoline over the life of the gasoline car. john: how much less carbon will i use if i buy your car? >> we get back into the assumptions game. john: make an assumption. >> you want me to do math on the program? my best case forward is no matter where you plug this car in, it is clear from the greenhouse gas point of view from go even using gasoline or coal to create your electricity. john: even if we generously assume we will burn a lot less carbon, willll we affect global warming? >> i'm little disturbed by his ancestry are not justifying anywhere close to the cost you
are paying in subsidies. john: let's touch on that. why do i need several thousand dollars every time leonardo dicaprio buys an electric car? if your electric cars are good, pay for them yourselves. >> we think it is great leo is driving that car. i am not a celebrity and i'm driving this car as well. the federal government is very mindful, the president and some of the supporters of republican because more than a billion dollars per day is flowing out of this country to support our addiction to oil. john: politicians are crony capitalist too. why should i spend $7000 subsidizing you? >> the reason it is worth investing in federal dollars in this is because we want to lead the world in this technology. there's no question, i don't
think ji bjorn is disputing the issue. it is better for the environment, better for energy security and it is better for our competitive position in the world, so why not leave? john: do you agree this is the future? >> we should invest in getting them much tter, but for now it is very expensive. john: thank you, bjorn. coming up, my mayor in new york wants to ban this. it is too big, he says. now mayor bloomberg has a new enemy. what is that?
>> styrofoam is horrible for the environment. >> i think styrofoam should be decreased throughout the world. it would help the environment a lot. if we could just use paper. john: paper? what is wrong with that? many things says angela logomasini from competitive enterprise institute. there is a cost to sending this out to garbage disposal's. >> well, john, if you're worried about the environment, those cups are better than paper cups. john: my mayor bloomberg is just dumb? what you mean more energy efficient? >> to make them, to use them, to dispose of them is more energy efficient than a paper cup. john: the mayor says he has to ship it to a landfill somewhere in that spends millions of dollars, he willave us money. john: where a bishop in the paper cups? >> this doesn't get recycled
easily. i like them. they don't earn my hands, they are more energy efficient and less expensive which is good for new york city businesses. this will be a huge cost to businesses including the governnt agencies which will spend $11 million for a study to buy paper rather than styrofoam cups. johnmost people we interviewed were skeptical about bloomberg's proposed ban. >> i think you should let people do what they want. >> i think you should take himself out of everybody's business. john: these are successful for a reason. >> absolutely. people buy them because they are cheaper and you use less energy. and they are lighter. they will be a lot easier to transport, just like the paper cups, these will be that much
less energy use to get them there. john: and that we are drowning in garbage, running out of space. >> we can fit an awful lot of trash in one relatively small landfill, 1000 years worth and there would be no consequences, there are no environmental issues. john: all of america's garbage could fit in one pile. >> 44 miles by 44 miles. it is not a really big thing when you look at it in perspective. >> some compete to make money on landfills. >> i am originally from new york, but my garbage was going to virginia. there is being used to build schools, help rural communities that have nothing. it has been an economic boom. but people don't like the way it sounds even though it was there when i went to go find it ahead to ask for directions. john: one street vendor thought
it would save him so much more. >> in a week i could save $100 more. it keeps the food warmer so by the time you have that you can enjoy theeal. when i have 25 customers who don't want to be taking my time. close it, put it in a bag and go. >> you're welcome, enj. john: he may have to switch to these aluminum containers, which are not as good. >> that will take a lot more energy. john: and these are hot to hold. one person asked about foam, they had an interesting point. >> i am all for the ban on plastic bags. john: a ban for plastic bags. san francisco is not alone. seattle and a bunch of other places have done this. austin, texas. what is wrong with that?
>> you don't think about the unintended consequences. researchers at the university of pennsylvania studied and noticed the hospital emissions from victory related illnesses went up 25% after the ban. john: in san francisco more people got sick from food poisoning because people used reusable bags. >> these bags harbor disease that is possible people died because of a silly band. john: another unintended consequence, store owners say a increase in shoplifting of people coming in. it means well. but there are unintended consequences and these politicians are arrogant and we should have limited government. thank you, angela, working for the competitive enterprise institute, which understands that. up next, climate change. >> this is a huge, huge planetary crisis, we have to
[ male announcer ] from the way the bristles move to the way they clean, once you try an oral-b deep sweep power brush, you'll never go back to a regular manual brush. its three cleaning zones with dynamic power briles reach between teeth with more brush movements to remove up to 100% more plaque than a regular manual brush. and even 76% more plaque than sonicare flexcare in hard to reach areas. oral-b deep sweep 5000 power brush. life opens up when you do.
>> we've got to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, cut greenhouse gas emissions, movie energy efficiency, moved to sustainable energy. it is overwhelming, the science. it is not even a question. john: the science is overwhelming, says beckel. certainly agree, he says overwhelming. most scientists agree with that. which is w we have this scratch. just in case. beckel also believes n is the cause of the warming. it is the science about that? always has, always will. is man causing it now? global warming a crisis? and can we do anything about it? those are the big questions. so let's have a debate about that.
roy spencer is a con ecologist at the university of alabama. he is skeptical about man causing local warming. we have an empty chair. we asked a dozen scientists concerned about man causing global warming debate roy. most refused. debating you would be doing the public a disservice because it would give your extreme ideas credibility. what do you say to that? you are portrayed a as those way extremists. >> i di do not deny there is warming or even that some of the warming is due to mankind. what i deny is we have any clue how much is warming. i don't think we have a clue. john: i want to hear from both sides of the issues we found a scientist who was alarmed of man causing local warming willing to
talk about this as long as it was not a debate. so, gets lost if you would take a seat over there, let's welcome nasa scientist gavin schmidt. come on in. you work -- >> and national company in new york city. john: why is he wrong? >> you said climate change has changed because we had had volcanoes, the sun has changed, there has been changes in the earth's path around the sun caused ice ages to come and go. all of those things are totally true. look at volcanoes, we have looked at the orbit, -- john: this time it is not those things. >> right. we have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. more than doubled the amount of butane. and the signatures of those changes are very clear all the way through the system. john: assuming this is true, why is it necessarily a problem? warmer might be better. more people die from cold then warmth. >> we have built an agricultural system and cities and everything we do based on assumptions that the climate is not going to change. the fact that we have so much infrastructure near the shore is because we didn't expect the sea level to rise. the damage from hurricane sandy was increased because the sea level has increased by 10 to 12 inches in this area. john: wildfires are increasing, hurricanes are increasing, drought. is this true? i thought these things have always happened. >> there are some things we can look at and say they are
changing. heat waves, we're having more extreme heat waves over a wider area. hurricanes, there is more uncertainty in the science of hurricanes. john: are they increasing? i have this graph of hurricanes by decade and they don't show an increase. >> i didn't say they did. but more intense rainfall over the u.s., over europe. and in other places as well. now what is going on in the future, that is where we are concerned about. john: what can we do? speak to what wee doing right now is not nothing. increasing the carbon dioxide every year, year on year. john: what can we do about it? we like burning fossil fuels. >> you mentioned earlier on about how dirty the air was. we don't like burning coal. what we like is the energy that
comes from coal. john: we like energy. even if we cut our emissions in half, it wouldn't fect the world. >> it would. john: it would be a tenth of the world's co2. >> eventually this will be a problem so large we will transition. john: china isn't cutting, india isn't cutting. >> that is a big problem. theyon't take the lead on this. john: why should we make poor people suffer? >> you give it back as a rebate and you make people understand that what we need to dos move carbon sources of fuel. john: i am not qualified to debate you, why won't you debate roy spencer? he helped produce the data the government uses for the atmospheric temperature. >> i am not a politician.
i'm here because you asked me to come on and talk about the climate and i'm happy to do that. anytime you want to ask me again, i will come here and talking about the science and point you in the right direction but i am not interested in doing this because it is good tv. what we have discovered is a scientific community needs to be talked about. i don't need to be arguing with people to make good tv. john: thank you, gavin schmidt. i appreciate you coming and i would love to have you come in. now let's bring in roy spencer to reply. or stay if you would like. >> i'm not interested, but thank you very much. john: dr. spencer, can you -- so what do you say to what he says? >> i agree with some of what he says. i speak out because i believe forcing unrealistic, expensive
energy solutions upon the poor is goi to kill people. we know that it kills. i would rather save people from poverty than theoretically save people in the future john: you have said carbon monoxide can make the planet greener? speaker that is pretty much understood. there are hundreds of papers that says increasing co2 is good for basically all the plants they studied, even crops like corn. my long-term prediction is eventually we will realize more co2 in the atmosphere is actually a good thing and considering the fact it is necessary for life on earth to have co2 in the atmosphere, it is amazing how little there is in the atmosphere. john: the perception among my friends here in new york if you are this weird outliner, and all the other serious scientists say
man is doing it, we've got to fix it now. >> i hate to say it, but that is a characterization that has come about because of the media. people like al gore put trade people like me as fringe. john: he will not debate anybody either. >> i consider my views pretty mainstream. i find a lot of people who agree with me but will not speak out because they're afraid they they may lose their funding. all you hear on the other side are scientists who decided to take a stand publicly, get involved with politicians. john: if you say this is a big problem, that is when you get money to fix the problem. >> people did not give money out for things that are not problems. john: thank you dr. roy spencer. coming up, the side of the argument you rarely hear. how those fossil fuels make our planet better, says the next
to our environment. but my next guest matt ridley says the opposite is true. how can that be the case? >> if you think about it, it means we are not burning something else. not cutting down the forest. the more we burn fossil fuels, the more we can produce fertilizer meaning we use less land to grow food we can spare the land for the forest, thursday next forest increase particularly in america. there is a fascinating new discovery that the world as a whole is getting greener. the amazon rain forest is actually getti greener. partly because we're putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere making grass grow faster. john: let's break that down. in general there is less farmland and more land returned to forest because we burn oil, coal instead of trees. >> new england now 70% forest.
countries like bangladesh are growing more forest. the satellite measures the green of the earth finding 20% of the earth is getting greener, 3% getting browner, about half of that effect coming from the carbon dioxide we are putting into the air from burning fossil fuels. so it is literally helping the amazon to grow. there is a very unwelcome message for the environmentalists, just happens to be true. the border between haiti and the dominican republic, the dominican republic is pretty green, haiti is pretty brown. haiti almost totally the forest did. john: you can clearly see a line between the two countries. >> you can see it in the satellite and the aerial image. it actually subsidizes the use
of propane as a cooking fuel so people won't go out into the forest to cut down trees, so there is a clear example of the use of fossil fuel is good for the environment. john: of propane comes from the natural gas which we are discovering much more of. it would be better in terms of global warming if this really is a threat that we can burn less oil and use more wind power or solar power perhaps, but it is such a joke when you look at the current energy use. i don't think people know three fourths of the energy comes from those horrible fossil fuels, nuclear 10% wind, solar a tiny fraction. i left out hydropower. we are nowhere close tgetting rid of fossil fuel. >> that is right. wind is irrelevant in this discussion. it needs a huge amount of
landscape even if we carpeted all of australia, we still wouldn't be able to make much of a difference. a lot of these renewables are not making a dent in the problem. john: the public doesn't buy this at all, how come? >> we have spent so much demonizing fossil fuels, no wonder people think they are the root of all evils. you think about it, they are not even the environment. things like flavoring because we made energy chief: it became impossible to get rid of slavery. john: slow down, how did cheap energy and slavery? >> because you u machines instead of people. it actually on the whole undermines getting che energy, you have cap